The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that married daughters are eligible for compassionate appointments under revised state guidelines, directing authorities to reconsider a rejected claim in light of binding precedents and updated policy. This judgment underscores the obligation of administrative bodies to comply with settled judicial pronouncements and amended instructions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Harmeet Kaur, sought compassionate employment in the wake of the death of her father, a government servant, on the ground that she was his sole dependent child. Her application was rejected by the respondents on 20.01.2026 on the sole ground that she was married, and therefore ineligible under the then-prevailing interpretation of the compassionate appointment policy.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father, a government employee, passed away on an unspecified date prior to 2023.
- The petitioner filed her representation for compassionate appointment on 17.08.2023 (Annexure P-15).
- In her representation, she specifically cited the judgment in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (CWP-2218-2017), decided on 17.01.2020 (Annexure P-12), which held that married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointments.
- The State’s appeal against the Amarjit Kaur judgment was dismissed by this Court on 25.01.2023 in LPA-462-2021 (Annexure P-13), and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the decision.
- On 29.01.2024, the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel, amended Note 1(c) of para 3 of the compassionate appointment guidelines to explicitly include "Daughter (including adopted daughter)" without any marital status restriction.
- On 31.01.2025, the Department of Personnel issued a circular directing all Administrative Departments to examine each pending case on its individual merit, recognizing that a married daughter may still be the primary caregiver due to social or economic hardship.
- Despite these developments, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim on 20.01.2026, relying solely on her marital status.
Procedural History
- 17.08.2023: Petitioner submitted representation for compassionate appointment.
- 20.01.2026: Respondents rejected the claim citing marital status as disqualifying factor.
- 07.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner:
- Argued that the rejection violated the binding precedent in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, which was upheld by this Court and the Supreme Court.
- Highlighted that the State had itself amended its policy on 29.01.2024 to remove marital status as a bar.
- Cited the 31.01.2025 circular mandating individual merit-based evaluation.
- Contended that the respondents’ refusal amounted to contempt of court, as they ignored settled law.
For the Respondent-State:
- Did not defend the impugned order.
- On receipt of the petition, the Additional Advocate General appeared and conceded that the order dated 20.01.2026 was legally unsustainable.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.01.2026.
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment on a suitable post.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the rejection of a compassionate appointment application solely on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter violates binding judicial precedents and amended government instructions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (2020) and its affirmation in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Kaur (2023), arguing that these judgments had conclusively settled that marital status cannot disqualify a daughter from compassionate appointment. She further invoked the State’s own policy amendments dated 29.01.2024 and the 31.01.2025 circular, which mandated individualized assessment and removed categorical exclusions. She contended that ignoring these directives amounted to arbitrary and illegal action.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not oppose the petition on merits. The Additional Advocate General conceded that the impugned order was legally untenable in light of the settled law and subsequent policy changes, and requested permission to withdraw the order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 was passed after the Amarjit Kaur judgment had attained finality and after the State had formally amended its guidelines to include married daughters. The Court noted that the respondents failed to consider either the binding precedent or the updated instructions, thereby acting in violation of the principles of natural justice and administrative accountability.
"Once a legal position is settled by a judgment of this Court and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the State itself alters its policy to conform to the same, administrative authorities are bound to comply. Ignoring such settled law is not merely erroneous - it is legally impermissible."
The Court further emphasized that the 31.01.2025 circular explicitly required administrative departments to evaluate each case on its individual merit, taking into account social and economic factors. The mechanical rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the basis of marital status alone was therefore indefensible.
The Court held that the respondents’ conduct, in disregarding both judicial authority and policy amendments, amounted to a failure in public duty and undermined the rule of law.
The Verdict
The impugned order dated 20.01.2026 is withdrawn. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in light of the judgments in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and the policy amendments dated 29.01.2024 and 31.01.2025. The reconsideration shall be completed within two months from today. The petitioner’s claim shall be evaluated on individual merit, without any categorical bar based on marital status.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compassionate Appointments Cannot Be Denied on Marital Status Alone
- Practitioners must now cite Amarjit Kaur and the 29.01.2024 policy amendment as binding authority in all pending cases involving married daughters.
- Any rejection based solely on marital status is legally unsustainable and subject to immediate quashing.
Administrative Departments Must Apply Updated Guidelines
- All government departments must review pending compassionate appointment cases against the 31.01.2025 circular, which mandates individualized assessment.
- Failure to consider social or economic hardship faced by a married daughter constitutes arbitrary action and invites judicial intervention.
Judicial Precedents Bind the State Even Without Formal Notification
- The State is bound by its own courts’ judgments even if internal circulars have not yet been formally circulated to all departments.
- Administrative delay in implementing judicial orders does not negate their binding effect.
